Anybody knows someone at openerp? Otherwise I'l lcontact them. Best, Charles.
Italo Vignoli <italo.vign...@gmail.com> a écrit : >Sorry for top posting, but I think that the idea of creating a wiki >page >where we can brainstorm about the selling points for Windows (as >Microsoft document is focused on Windows, which is their cash cow) is >very good. All the points that have been raised so far are extremely >good, and I think that we should pick them and paste in a starting >document. > >I am currently working at the final version of the migration and >training protocol for certification, and I do not have the time for >creating this wiki page for a few days. Anyone could create the page >though, in the Marketing area of TDF wiki: > >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing > >I would call the page "Selling Point vs MS Office", because this is the >summary of the contents. > >Marc can definitely help in creating the page, if someone has problems >with the wiki. > >I am definitely interested in helping with the contents, once I will >have finished working on the certification protocols. > >On 12/29/12 10:07 PM, Jay Lozier wrote: >> On 12/29/2012 01:12 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote: >>> Well to be fair, I raised three points that seemed to me were the >>> arguments of MS feature-wise. >>> >>> Other arguments are listed, and my suggestion was to create a new >wiki >>> page where we could compare (side-by-side) LO and MSO. >>> >>> Summary of arguments from MS against LO >>> >>> *Arguments about $$* >>> >>> * Total costs: Business impact; like software issues, integration, >>> incompatibility, run-time errors, downtime, unreliable support >and >>> security vulnerability. >>> >> Unreliable support? MS normally offers very limited direct user >support >> - 1 or 2 incidents max if I remember correctly. Most user support >will >> be from a help desk (internal or external). If it is from MS it is >via >> separate contract or additional costs to the licensing agreement. >> Security is a joke because MS is notorious for shipping insecure >> products. Run-time errors? What about BSOD for Windows? Integration >and >> incompatibility are very nebulous - do they mean file formats or >being >> able to access the program from another? The first is really MSO not >> following standards and the later is a programming issue. >>> >>> * Total benefit: Such as reliable supports, updates, >accessibility, >>> and security. >>> >>> * Integration cost: The cost associated when you decide to use a >>> different software platform. >>> >> Different software platform - do they mean OS? If so, LO does this >> better even if the OS/distro is not officially support because the >> source code is available and can be compiled by someone for a very >> specific platform. With MSO, if a version is not provide you have no >> options (Linux version available). >>> >>> * Management: Can it be easily managed? Large companies tend to >have >>> this issue because they don't have a unified system. >>> >> This is truly a management problem, is the management competent? >>> >>> * Deployment costs: Can it handle corporate size business >>> productivity? In addition to the compromise or extra benefits of >>> software alternatives. >>> >> Software suitability should be determined for each case. There is no >> blanket answer for this. MS is implying that MSO is the only answer >for >> businesses when in fact it is often not. Often the issue is that a >> company has an installed base of VB macros, etc for MSO that would >need >> porting to LO >>> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide the same depth of >>> functionality as Microsoft Office as a result do not meet the >>> needs of some end users. This will force your organization to >>> manage multiple software suites potentially increasing IT costs. >>> >> No software meets the needs of all users because all are >design/feature >> compromises. >>> >>> * When running a mixed software environment you are also running >the >>> risk of interoperability issues which could further increase IT >>> and helpdesk costs, inhibit productivity, and generate end users >>> frustration. >>> >> Most companies standardize on the software tools as much as possible >to >> reduce these costs. However no single program/suite will cover all >user >> needs so to some degree there will be a mixed software environment. >>> >>> * Additional factors that could create higher costs include >>> integration with your existing systems and applications like ERP >>> and content management systems and software updates. >>> >> This is more of issue with the ERP and CMS software not LO per se. >They >> can support LO if required by contract or if the vendor desires. >>> >>> * *LibreOffice*/OpenOffice *does not allow for incremental >software >>> updates. *Instead it requires a complete uninstall and reinstall >>> every time you need to update the software. >>> >> How difficult are Windows/Mac updates? I use Linux. I am not sure >this >> is a major issue if the updates are handle uninstall/reinstall >without >> user intervention. >> >> The cost argument is mostly bogus because it ignores the >> purchase/licensing costs for MSO while LO/AOO are free for unlimited >> installations. >>> >>> >>> *Arguments more about features* >>> >>> * Office drives increasing business value through innovations that >>> span basic functionality, like copy and paste, to >>> advanced features like business intelligence. >>> >> How? Most of the "business intelligence" I am aware of is located in >> databases outside of MSO/LO thus the issue is interfacing >(Base/Access) >> or importing the data (Calc/Excel). Importing data is fairly easy >with >> Calc and Base can interface with many relational database backends if >> desired. >>> >>> * LibreOffice/OpenOffice does not deliver a complete productivity >>> suite. Critical components like email and calendaring are >absent, >>> not to mention equivalent software to Publisher, OneNote, >Business >>> Contact Manager and SharePoint Workspace. >>> >> If they are so valuable why do some versions of MSO not include them? >> Also, can the feature be done within LO >> (Publisher/OneNote/BusinessContactManager) using the existing >components? >>> >>> * LibreOffice / OpenOffice also lack some commonly used >components, >>> for instance; they do not ship with commonly used functionality >>> like user friendly ribbons, clipart, SmartArt or Pivot Charts. >>> >> Ribbons user friendly? Many find them poorly designed. >Clipart/SmartArt >> IMHO nice but not very necessary. Pivot Charts I am not sure about. >>> >>> * Organizations may have to fill these application gaps with >product >>> extensions, additional software or customizations adding to cost >>> and complexity. >>> >>> >> And they do not with MSO? The main issue for LO is that is a large >> number of third part extensions available for MSO to extend >> functionality that would need to be created if the functionality does >> not already exist in LO. >> >>> *Arguments about collaboration* >>> >>> * Collaboration technology should facilitate ease of sharing, and >>> trust in the fidelity of information shared. To facilitate >>> collaboration, Office 2010 has many new features including >>> co-authoring, integration with the Microsoft Unified >>> Communications technologies in addition to the new online >>> companion applications, the Office Web Applications. >>> >> IMHO, MS is trying to slowly convert everyone to renting MSO by using >> Office Web Applications. This renting is more lucrative in the long >run; >> lots of "small" monthly fees forever versus a one time purchase. When >> the true costs are analyzed many may reject this model. For many the >> major reason to upgrade from MSO XP to MSO 2013 is because XP does >not >> support the MSOX file format. There are no new features they need >beyond >> what XP already has they need. MS dropping support may not be a real >> issue for some, they are occasional users and security issues may not >be >> that critical. >> >> Pushing a limited use feature for many - collaboration - as the >reason >> for renting MSO online as the reason for this. The are very few truly >> new features most users want in LO or MSO that would get them excited >> about a new release. For MS this means most people would then buy the >> new version for the new feature. This means for any office suite many >> users will delay upgrading to a newer version for sometime just to >avoid >> the cost/aggravation of updating. I suspect MS is seeing this trend >with >> business users and is trying find some other way to separate them >from >> their money. Thus the push for online collaboration. I can remember >when >> spell checkers were added and people really wanted the new version >for >> the spell checking. >>> >>> * People using OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to using >>> disparate email and document repositories to share and >>> edit documents one person at a time. To take advantage of >advanced >>> collaboration technologies will require additional software and >>> possibly more customization. In addition to sharing documents, >>> information formatting integrity is critical. >>> >> There are no external users? As soon as the an external user is added >> this argument falls apart, they must access the document outside the >> original organizations IT domain. Also, if the all the users are >> internal why can they not access the documents on the internal >server? >> This would seem to much simpler than the convoluted methods MS is >> talking about. >>> >>> * LibreOfice/OpenOffice can read and output many file types, >however >>> vital information like formatting structures, calculations, >>> layout, and macros may not be preserved when sharing with non >>> OpenOffice/LibreOffice users. >>> >> What about MSO file type/version incompatibilities. Macros are a >problem >> but they are also a serious security risk. Document layout is often >> determined by system default settings and the printer settings. I >have >> seen different printers re-paginate a document because of mechanical >> issues when printing from the same computer. >>> >>> * Whether you have a mixed group of users or plan to share >documents >>> with people outside of your organization you may not be able to >>> trust that people receive the document with the intended content >>> and formatting. >>> >> See above, also what do the external users need to have; are they >> involved in editing the document? LO offers better PDF exporting than >> MSO and often this is a better format for sharing with external >users. >>> >>> *Security/Sensitive information* >>> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice are limited to only password protecting >>> files. Although password protected documents can be effective, >>> they do not ensure security and may cause additional complexity. >>> >> Older versions of MSO used a weak password protection scheme. >Password >> protection is useful in some situations but it is limited to the >> strength of the password. The "complexity" of password protection >must >> be judged in context of the security needs for the specific document >and >> the overall system security. Also, user level protection schemes >beyond >> passwords are dubious, IMHO, because most users do not really >understand >> the security methods/models to properly use them. >>> >>> * Advantage and also weakness of OpenOffice/LibreOffice for being >an >>> open source software means that many users have the ability >>> to alter the state of the software by integrating their >>> own design, which could lead to security vulnerability issue. >>> >> Truly, how many people actually do this? I think in practical terms >this >> more a theoretical issue than a practical one. Most users and >> organizations (vast majority?) are not going to modify the code. >Also, >> this could be a benefit for a large corporation to customize there >> office suite to better suit their needs. I think IBM did this OO with >> Symphony. >>> >>> * Microsoft Office provides a robust set of features for securing >>> documents that reduces the risk and cumbersomeness of password >>> only protection. >>> >> MS security implementations have historically been poor so what >robust >> features? Also, are these features protecting against MS stupidities >> which LO does not support anyway. >>> >>> * Information Rights Management (IRM) allows individuals and >>> administrators to specify permissions to documents, workbooks, >and >>> presentations. This helps prevent sensitive information from >being >>> printed, forwarded, or copied by unauthorized people. After >>> permission for a file has been restricted using IRM, the access >>> and usage restrictions are enforced no matter where the >>> information is. >>> >> I doubt most users would correctly use this feature, they are not >system >> administrators. This sounds good but can the system be bypassed by >> anyone logging in with valid user credentials or by some with valid >> credentials modifying the permissions? >>> >>> *Arguments about "Cloud"* >>> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice does not provide any other deployment >>> option besides the desktop. >>> >> IMHO, cloud deployment will be secondary for most users, most of the >> time. The primary issue for users is having the tools available and >> access to the files. If the user has access to both the tools (local) >> and the files (external) this issue is moot. See above comment about >> renting software. >>> >>> * Microsoft provides a seamless experience across the PC, phone, >>> and browser. >>> >> Really, Linux users can not use MSO and LO can be compiled/ported to >> other devices because the code is available Compiling/porting is not >> trivial. MSO is limited to what MS supports (or not supports) >>> >>> *Future-looking arguments* >>> >>> * OpenOffice/LibreOffice may be limited in providing the next >>> generation of productivity, cloud computing, lacking the >ecosystem >>> of enabling server and consumer collaboration technologies >>> likeSharePoint and SkyDrive. >>> >> Dropbox? UbuntuOne? AmazonWeb? There are several services for sharing >> files between remote users. The only issue is which to chose. Also, >IMHO >> MS is pushing cloud centric models to drive users to a rental model >for >> MSO. If the data is in the cloud why not have the have MSO in the >cloud >> and charge a monthly rental fee to access both? MS probably hopes to >> make more money this way. >> >> I have one rule: If sales/marketing is pushing a "solution" I ask, >"Does >> the solution really benefit me or does it benefit the vendor?" For >most >> cloud models, I do not see any benefit for renting software for me >but >> considerable benefit for the vendor. I see some benefit for sharing >> documents between devices and others and this can be done >independently >> of any software. >>> >>> * Choosing Microsoft Office will help ensure that you can take >>> advantage of the next generation of productivity software. >>> >> Pure marketing hype. Also, how many new features do users need? IMHO, >> most users would like improved implementations of existing features >not >> many truly new features. Make the software better at what it does and >> make useful but obscure features more accessible/visible. For example >I >> like any improvements for importing and exporting MSOX formats since >I >> receive them periodically. But this is not a new feature but >improvement >> to an existing feature. >>> >>> >>> Is it possible to add this to a wiki or something please. We can >work >>> on it collaboratively :) >> +1 - see inline comments >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Immanuel >> >> Summary: >> >> Most of MS' talking points are about collaboration with others. LO >> offers tools for collaboration with others so this is not the real >> issue. The issue to MS is that LO does not offer a cloud version but >> this ignores what really is needed for collaboration. What is really >> needed is the ability to share files with other users and numerous >> methods services are available to do this. Where the LO is installed >is >> not critical along as users have access to LO. IMHO, MS is trying to >> push a software rental model using the cloud versus a software >purchase >> model. The rental model is likely to make more money for MS over the >> life of the product. Assuming an annual rental of about $300 >($25/month) >> one can easily spend more over time than if they purchased. LO and >AOO >> use the purchase model, the user installs locally but since LO and >AOO >> are both free the user has unlimited downloads/installs to any >device. >> >> Another point is that MS is saying they support a wide variety of >> devices which is not strictly true, they do not support many OS'. LO >and >> AOO have many official versions available for many devices but >because >> the source code is available users are able to compile/port either to >> any device. One can argue LO and AOO can potentially support all >devices >> on the market while MS only supports selected devices/OS' with >> unsupported users having no options. >> >> IMHO the MS security features are probably more dangerous because >they >> allow untrained users to make important security decisions. While >there >> are potential benefits the problem is that most users are well versed >in >> security issues. Thus they are liable to make serious mistakes when >> implementing anything beyond password protection of a document. Also, >MS >> has a long, dismal history with security issues so why should one >assume >> they implemented best practices. >> >> Most direct feature comparisons are disingenuous because LO/AOO often >> implement the same feature/functionality differently. Some cases >LO/AOO >> has a better implementation and in some cases MSO has the better one. >> Also, when one downloads LO/AOO one gets the entire suite while MSO >is >> offered with different retail selections so direct comparison should >> specify which MSO retail selection is being discussed. LO is clearly >> more feature rich than the less expensive MSO variants by virtue of >> including everything. >> >> Integration with Outlook, IMHO, sounds good but is really not that >> useful and the principal functionality can be replaced by other FOSS >> options. > >-- >Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com >mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it >skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com > >-- >Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to >marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org >Problems? >http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ >All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >deleted -- Envoyé de mon téléphone avec Kaiten Mail. Excusez la brièveté. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
